UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-4888 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus

DEBORAH L. PRINCE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR-

-327-S)

Submitted: June 23, 1998 Decided: July 30, 1998

Before WIDENER, ERVIN, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Beth M. Farber, Acting Federal Public Defender, Baltimore,

Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States

Attorney, Susan M. Ringler, Assistant United States Attorney,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM

Deborah L. Prince appeals from the district courtÂ’s judgment sentencing her to a two-year term of imprisonment for violating the terms of her supervised release. PrinceÂ’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that PrinceÂ’s appeal does not present any meritorious issues. Prince was informed of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief and has not done so. Because we find no reversible error, we affirm.

The sole issue is whether the court abused its discretion in imposing the maximum sentence of two years§ 3583(e) (1994). Under the applicable guidelines, Prince was eligible for a sentence of between four and ten months§ 7B1.4(a) (1996). Chapter 7 of the Guidelines, however, only contains policy statements, which are non-binding, advisory guides to courts in determining the proper sentence. See United States v. Davis , 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir. 1995). We find the court properly considered these policy statements before imposing sentence. We also find that the court was under no obligation to provide notice to Prince that it was considering imposing a sentence above that which was suggested in the Guidelines policy statements. Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion.

Pursuant to the requirements of Anders , this court has reviewed the record for potential error and has found none. Therefore, we affirm PrinceÂ’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.

If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. CounselÂ’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED